Benjamin Netanyahu only made one mistake in another stellar performance in front of Congress today. The Israeli PM neglected to give an initial shout out to Nancy Pelosi as he did to Harry Reid, causing the now House minority leader to walk off in a snit and call his speech “insulting.” Oh, well, even the most seasoned politicians like Bibi blow it sometimes.

But you know he did a good job because some desperate Democratic back bencher from Kentucky named John Yarmuth got all incensed in his post-speech statement (no, he didn’t attend), accusing Bibi of being like a kid at Disneyland trying to get everything he wants, including extra ice cream. Obviously Yarmuth (a former Republican and a Jew – go figure) missed the key point. Obama and Kerry already were about to give the Iranians everything they want.

Well, not quite. Because when you give the Iranians everything they want, they just want more. And, lo and behold, in the midst of the uproar over Netanyahu’s speech, along comes none other than Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif to set matters straight.

MONTREUX, Switzerland (Reuters) – Iran rejected on Tuesday as “unacceptable” U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue talks on a deal, Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported.

Iran laid out the position as the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers met for a second day of negotiations and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a stinging critique of the agreement they are trying to hammer out.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met a day after Obama told Reuters that Iran must commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a landmark atomic deal to be reached.

“Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,” Zarif was quoted by Fars as saying.

So, in other words, the ten-year sunset clause that many of us thought should be an horrendous non-starter, is not enough for the Iranians – who, of course, will continue to negotiate, probably until 2035, assuming they haven’t blown up half the globe by then.

There you have it – the perfect signal the Iranians aren’t really interested in a deal but wish to continue to play the Obama administration for suckers on into oblivion. Who could have predicted that? Well, a lot of people, including yours truly, the day before yesterday – and I don’t speak a word of Farsi.

I have one other prediction to make. This won’t make a bit of difference to John Yarmuth. He’ll still be angry at Netanyahu. And Pelosi will stay insulted.

It seems hyperbolic to say that Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran — if Ayatollah Khamenei, in his “wisdom,” allows it to happen — will be the worst deal ever made. But if what we have been learning about it is true, it almost certainly will be.

To begin with, the agreement is said to have a sunset clause of 10-15 years. Whatever the number turns out to be, that tells us that Iran is free to do anything it wants in the nuclear weapons field after a set amount of time, assuming that it hadn’t disobeyed the strictures of the agreement before then — a monumental assumption given past history. (Ironically, in this one way Iran is not unlike other states, all of which, to my knowledge, do their best to hide their nuclear programs, including the U.S.)

The idea — if it can be called that — behind this sunset clause is a kind of bet that Iran will turn into a normal country during the time frame, abjuring the fanatical religious doctrines (global war bringing about the twelfth Imam/Mahdi, etc.) inherent in Khomeinist Shiism that would make allowing Iran the bomb equivalent to giving a loaded gun to a two year old, only with global implications. Of course the more modern view of the world is true for many Iranians now, but will it be true in the future for all or even most? Who will be in power? The ayatollahs — almost all, from what we know, true believers in this apocalyptic ideology or willing to pretend they are — seem to have a stranglehold for now. And what about the Revolutionary Guard, evidently a universe unto itself in Iran, with expansionist goals that already have been largely successful across the Middle East through Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and now into Yemen?

Is all the endless chanting of “Death to America! Death to Israel!” merely “patriotic rhetoric” to appease the Iranian version of low-information voters? Or is it, like many things repeated literally since birth, buried deep in the unconscious of the populace? If it’s merely rhetoric, why are those same Revolutionary Guard now on the border of Israel hundreds of miles from home, apparently plotting an invasion with their Hezbollah lackeys over the Golan Heights? (As a sidelight, it has been shown that those who talk most about suicide are those most likely to do it.)

And why exactly is Iran building ICBMs — not part of the deal evidently — if not to deliver nuclear weapons? And just what weapons would Iran be building in 10-15 years, if not now? The atom bomb itself was 1944-45 technology. The U.S. detonated the first hydrogen bomb at Eniwetok in 1952, making the Hiroshima bomb seem like a pop gun. Are the Iranians that far behind that they can’t do as well, or close enough, 70 or more years later?

Consider this: a thermonuclear weapon dropped on Tel Aviv would have fallout extending throughout the Arab world (the part it hadn’t already demolished — bye-bye, Beirut and forget about the Dome of the Rock) and probably beyond to Greece (certainly to Cyprus) and possibly more of Southern Europe and Northern Africa down to the Sudan. And that’s if the winds were favorable. Israel would certainly reciprocate with its arsenal of nuclear submarines and weapons that no doubt dwarf the Iranian. The results of this would be catastrophic to the entire world. Who knows where it would end?

And yet Obama, Kerry and Wendy Sherman wish to give the Iranians a sunset clause. That’s sunset for everybody. And this is the “negotiation” that began supposedly to prevent Iran from enriching uranium while destroying all it had enriched. It’s hard even to remember that.

While anything is possible in the ongoing struggle between the Obama administration and the state of Israel, a high-level military source told PJ Media that today’s allegation — that an Israeli attack on Iran was supposedly imminent in 2014, but Obama warned Israel that U.S. jets would shoot down the Israelis if they attacked Iran’s nuclear installations — is not likely true.

More likely, the report, which emerged from Kuwait, is disinformation timed to discredit Prime Minister Netanyahu and make him seem a warmonger in advance of his address to Congress Tuesday.

The source stated that, since 2008, it is no longer possible for the U.S. to intercept Israeli jets flying over Southern Iraq, the normal route to Iran.

The U.S. simply does not have the facilities in place anymore, and if it were to get them, the “spin up” would be obvious to almost everyone, making it ineffective. Moreover, there have been many reports that Saudi Arabia has agreed to let the Israelis fly over their territory if they attacked Iran, making U.S. interception all the more difficult.

Still further, the source noted, it would be unclear if U.S. air force personnel would obey an order to attack their Israeli colleagues — some of whom they may have trained with. On top of that, the Israelis are often more experienced fighter pilots. The ones chosen to attack Iranian nuclear installations would undoubtedly be an elite team.

A more practical way for the U.S. to stop an Israeli attack would be for the administration to alert the Iranians in advance — something it could do without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the source said. The source also added, though, that no doubt the Israelis had already thought of that, and factored it in.

More importantly, newly retired Israeli chief-of-staff Benny Gantz just told Arutz Sheva that such an attack never happened.

Prostitution may be the world’s oldest profession, but anti-Semitism is probably the world’s oldest bigotry. It’s come and gone and come and gone and then come and gone again since the days of the pharaohs.

Well, maybe it was never really gone, but, like cancer, it was in remission. Born at the end of World War II, I was one of those lucky Jews to be born in a period of remission as never before seen, particularly in the United States.

It’s over. And how it’s over. You don’t need a poll to tell you that, but a new one just conducted by Trinity College and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law tells us that 54 percent of self-identified Jewish students in 55 college across the country experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the 2013-2014 school year. Whoa! Welcome to the University of Berlin.

At the same time, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has published a “Top 10″ academic institutions for Jew hatred with two Ivies — Columbia and Cornell — at the top. Representatives of Columbia are already crying foul, but with Rashid Khalidi director of their Middle East studies department, what do they expect? He’s not exactly an impartial academic, more like Mahmoud Abbas with better credentials. (Abbas got his PhD in Moscow for a thesis denying the Holocaust.)

I can understand why the university would be concerned, however. A lot of parents, not to mention alumni and donors, are probably a bit perturbed to see the institution at the top of such a list. More importantly, how about prospective students? If I were a young person, I wouldn’t want to apply at this point. The idea of Columbia with a judenrein student body, given the overwhelming contribution of Jews to the university’s past, is as tragic as it is hard to fathom.

But then, as we all know, American academia is just part of the global zeitgeist, albeit a shameful and especially dangerous part. And the manner in which Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is being treated by the administration gives cover to this kind of behavior, even enhances it. The recent statements of Susan Rice, who has turned into a kind of all-purpose, prevaricating hatchet woman for Barack Obama, are astonishing. The thought that the woman who serially lied to us about Benghazi is condemning Netanyahu while herself about to speak in front of AICPAC gives a new fascist spin to the word “chutzpah.” The slogan of the German Communist Party in the early thirties was “Nach Hitler Uns!” (After Hitler us). Perhaps the new slogan for a third Obama term should be “Nach Benghazi Uns!”

So is there anything new about the new new new new anti-Semitism? No, there isn’t. As usual the Jews are the canaries in the proverbial coal mine. And you all know what comes next.

While America’s Ditherer-in-Chief seems to be having difficulties fighting Islamic terrorism or even naming it, an American jury just had no such trouble in what should become a landmark case:

A U.S. jury on Monday found the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority liable for supporting terrorist attacks in Israel more than a decade ago that killed dozens of Americans.

Jurors in Manhattan federal court awarded $218.5 million in damages to 10 American families who brought the case, a sum that is automatically tripled to $655.5 million under a 1992 U.S. anti-terrorism law, lawyers for the families said.

The PLO and PA are appealing, of course, and promising they won’t pay up, while concentrating on their own sleazy attempt to bring Israel before the International Criminal Court over Gaza, but there is no question this case opens a powerful new approach to dealing with terror organizations: bankrupt them. Behind virtually every such organization from ISIS to Hamas is a leadership looking to get rich by exploiting their own people. Putting them out of business wounds their bloody enterprise, perhaps fatally.

Although heard in a New York court, the case was championed by two Israeli lawyers, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and her husband, Avi Leitner. These two extraordinary people, through their organization Shurat HaDin (the Israel Law Center), deserve all our support. True heroes of our time, they are in the process of suing terror organizations throughout the world as well as the financial institutions that enable them, including the Bank of China.

I can’t believe I’m actually asking if Obama is a Manchurian candidate. I am so NOT into conspiracy theories. For me, it was always Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the Texas School Book Depository. The only conspiracy I ever believed in was the Black Sox Scandal. And yet… and yet….

No, I still don’t believe it. It’s simply not true. Barack Obama is not the Manchurian candidate. That’s just an excuse. The only problem is…

He’s worse. He’s far worse. Barack Obama doesn’t have to be a Manchurian candidate. He can and is doing more damage without being one. A Manchurian candidate could be exposed (yes, and possibly could not). Barack Obama doesn’t need that. He and the media and the brainwashed public that elected him are destroying our country (and the West) all by themselves. They don’t need any secret conspirators in the back room. They’re all there in public view. And how.

Obamacare and the sabotaging of the immigration system were bad enough, but they are absolutely trivial compared to what is going on now. We have the next thing to a jihadist in the White House. From the inability to name Islamic terrorists as Islamic, to the failure to name Jews as the objects of homicidal anti-Semitism at a kosher market, to the complete omission of the word Christian when 21 Christians have their heads cut off (simultaneously!) for being Christian, we have in the Oval Office not only the worst president in the history of our country, we have the worst person to be president.

And now he is opening the door to a huge number of Syrian refugees, who knows how many of whom may be members of ISIS, al Qaeda or some group we haven’t even heard of yet. If I were a Christian or a Jew or even some sort of wishy-washy Muslim, I’d make sure your door was locked at night and you had exercised your Second Amendment rights.

And if this weren’t enough, Obama is colluding with the Iranian ayatollahs as if he were an Shiite imam, not only to help them get nuclear weapons, but to form a permanent alliance with the United States against the Sunni world. How insane is that! (As a side issue, answer this question: What is more important – whether Iran gets the bomb or whether Bibi Netanyahu speaks in front of Congress? Absolutely stupid question, isn’t it? Only our administration thinks it’s the latter.)

I have to say I’m flabbergasted. I never thought I’d be living in times like this, even though as a boy I saw the Auschwitz tattoos on the arms of the nurses in my father’s medical office. But what we’re seeing on the news now is just as horrifying.

I wish I knew what to do, because convincing Obama to act is a double-edged sword. He is a horrible person to be a commander-in-chief and to put our troops in his hands is an awful thing to do to them. He will undoubtedly pull the rug out from under them just at the wrong moment. And they certainly know it. How could they not?

Emergency services gather outside a venue after shots were fired where an event titled “Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” was being held in Copenhagen, Saturday, Feb. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Polfoto, Janus Engel)

If this is Tuesday, it must be… Belgium… oops, Denmark. Sorry, Belgium was last week. It was Copenhagen this time under jihadist attack… scratch that again… I meant “random violence.” Is that correct, Mr. President? A few weeks ago, it was some “folks at a deli” in Paris, now it’s some “folks standing in front of a synagogue” in Cope. Koinky-dinky, as the kids say. What next?

That’s fine then. Don’t be upset, you “progressives” at the Huffington PostandVox. This is just a police matter — like parking tickets or, at worst, running a red light. All this 1938 talk is a bunch of nonsense from wingnuts. History never repeats itself except, as Marx told us, as farce. Chairman Barack’s got it all handled. He’s holding a conference on “extremism.” And he has a new pen pal. No, it’s not Netanyahu.

Okay, enough of this. The “liberals” around us are hopeless useful idiots who wouldn’t know what was happening to them after two years in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe Marx was right about the farce.

But we don’t have the luxury. With each passing day it becomes increasingly clear we are in a huge war of civilizations. This is a bigger deal than anything since WWII. Nothing could be more obvious. That means 2016 is about as serious as it gets. We need our Churchill fast, but in searching for him (or her) we cannot afford a bloodletting. We have to treat this as a wartime situation because it is.

Frankly, I haven’t seen a single candidate do that yet. I’m looking for that person. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. They’re all irrelevant, even a distraction at this point, if we don’t win the war. And don’t think we can’t lose. Our technology is only a small advantage and has already been ripped off and used against us. The will to win is far more important and our will is next to non-existent, especially at the top. And as everyone knows, or should, we have almost lost twice before. It took a Charles Martel at Tours to beat back Islam and, much later, the battle at the Gates of Vienna. But don’t expect much help at Vienna this time. News from Austria is not great, where Muslims already outnumber Catholics in Vienna schools. That gates are open. And if Obama gives Iran the bomb, who needs gates?

So we need somebody relatively fast and somebody who, above all, is a great commander-in-chief. I’ve said this several times before and will keep saying it until he or she is in place. Moreover, by focusing on winning the war, Republicans will have the best possible chance of winning the election. The country will be with us. The average American, smarter than the elites, realizes the danger of losing. They care about their country unambivalently. But we have to keep up the flow of information to them. We have to inspire them. We cannot stop. We cannot give up. We have everything to lose.

Elite police officers take position outside the kosher market where four hostages were killed and shortly before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the site, in Paris. (AP Photo/Francois Mori.)

Thought experiment: What if a white racist with a submachine gun broke into a convenience store in South Central Los Angeles, grabbed seven or eight African Americans who were shopping (maybe there was one Korean) as hostages for the release of some other white racists and then, when attacked, started spewing the N-word while shooting up the place, killing three or four of the African Americans and wounding three or four others, one or two critically.

How would President Obama react?

Do you think he would say there was something racial about the obscene incident? Damn right he would — and he should. In fact, he would do it forcefully and immediately. After all, when Trayvon Martin died in far more ambiguous circumstances, he was quick to jump in, identifying with the 17 year old who would resemble, Obama said, his own son if he had one.

Now consider what our president said about the events at the Hyper Cacher market in Paris on January 9 in a new interview with Vox.com: “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

“[V]icious zealots… randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli”? That’s the way the way the president of the United States describes a dedicated jihadist murdering four Jews in a kosher market in one of the oldest and largest Jewish neighborhoods in Paris, the day after other jihadists shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices, killing even more people? No Jews, no jihadist, just more “random” violence, as if Ahmedy Coulibaly, the man who murdered the four Jews and had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, just stumbled into a kosher deli by accident with a submachine gun while on the way to Cafe de Flore for a cognac.

Now hold on, Simon. You’re not about to call the president of the United States an antisemite, are you? (Not yet. Give me a moment.) Inevitably some in the media found these remarks by the president a bit disturbing and queried Jen Psaki at State and White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

Question: Does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?

Psaki: Well, as you know, I believe if I remember the victims specifically there were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically but the individuals who were impacted.

Question: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli though, they were in a kosher deli?

Earnest: John, these individuals were not targeted by name. This is the point.

Question: Not by name, but by religion, were they not?

Earnest: Well, John, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.

Yes, one of about twenty, but only the Jews were killed and the killer was there with the sole objective of killing Jews. He even said so himself before he shot them. Why do Psaki and Earnest make such outrageous and morally despicable statements? Who tells them to do it? To call Psaki and Earnest whores is an insult to prostitutes. Ms. Psaki is doing an excellent job of upholding the State Department’s long-time reputation for antisemitism. As for Mr. Earnest, that he could say what he did with a straight face makes him about as reprehensible a human being as you could find. I say “about” because nothing could top his boss.

If you’re asking me whether I think the president’s an antisemite, why don’t I put it this way. Barack Obama — despite a claque of Jewish advisers (Axelrod, Lew, Emanuel, etc. I wonder how they felt when they heard this latest round) — appears to have a very complicated, almost bizarre reaction to Jews. Maybe it’s a weird competition between oppressed groups — blacks and Jews — or more of his not-so-masked appreciation of (and defensiveness about) all things Islamic.

And, yes, he clearly can’t deal with Benjamin Netanyahu, whose natural existential concern for his country regarding Iranian nuclear weapons is disruptive of the president’s desire to be seen as a peacemaker with that pathologically un-peaceful country that is the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism. How could anyone trust Obama to protect Israel’s interest against Iran’s religious fanatics when he can’t even acknowledge jihadists are deliberately killing Jews in Paris when it was on everyone’s television sets for days?

You will have to excuse me for getting a little personal but I am more than a little outraged. Back when I was in grammar school, my best buddy was a kid named Andy Goodman. He was Jewish (I bet you guessed!) and the name may be familiar to you. He went down South in 1964 to do his bit for the civil rights movement. You may have seen the movie about what happened to him — Mississippi Burning. Nowhere near as courageous as Andy and more than a bit frightened after what happened to him, two years later I decided to go down South myself. I felt I had to do something, too.

Now I live in an era when Barack Obama and so many others are trying to remind me and everyone post-Ferguson that #blacklivesmatter. Well, they do and they always did, for me and a lot of other people. But somehow our president, regarding Iran, Israel and the events in Paris, seems to have forgotten its obvious corollary: #Jewishlivesmatter. Until he gets that straight, I’ll be on the side of black people, but not for a second on his.

Unlike Nixon and Clinton, who lied in self-defense, Obama lies proactively, which is decidedly more dangerous. He will say practically anything to achieve his goals without regard to the truth. The repeated assertion about keeping your doctor and your health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is just one famous example. But only a few days ago on Fareed Zakaria’s show the president made a statement that dwarfed his claims about Obamacare. When asked if we were in a war with radical Islam, the president replied:

….I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam, and I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for — order, peace, prosperity.

99.9 percent?! I will bypass for the moment Obama’s rather self-serving definition of Islam and focus on that outrageous number, which is absurd on the face of it and not remotely supported by any of the numerous polls on the subject. Although the data is somewhat fluid, we can assume that out of 1.7 billion Muslims world wide, at least 200 million are sympathetic to the goals and means of the Islamists, many of them, undoubtedly many millions, willing to put their scimitars where their mouths are. By way of comparison, of the approximately 66 million Germans at the beginning of World War II, some 850,000 were card-carrying Nazis.Daniel Pipes points out the Islamist numbers are diminishing, but the raw totals are still huge and nowhere remotely in the vicinity of Obama’s risible point 01 percent. No matter how you count it, we’ve got a problem that is not going away anytime soon, possibly not before everyone reading this article has passed from the scene, I’m sorry to say.

So why did Obama lie and what does that mean? To begin with, he is a moral narcissist. That means because he knows he’s right and knows what we should do, he’s free to say anything he wishes that he believes will achieve those goals, especially if he thinks he can get away with it. And Fareed Zakaria would be the last person to question him. (The CNN commentator has problems of his own.) If all this reminds you of the ends justify the means, it’s not accidental. Marx was a moral narcissist too — one of the greatest.

Now let’s get back to Obama and Islam. Is he a Muslim? Not really. He’s not religious, but he does have an Islamic childhood with which he identifies, undoubtedly on a more profound level than he does with Christianity, which he joined for expedient reasons. Therefore, he can’t acknowledge to himself and others that Islam is severely sick and in need of serious reformation. No talk from Obama ever about all the extreme misogyny and homophobia that pervades Islam, nor of Shariah law. Nothing like this ever passes his lips — at least I’ve never heard it. To do so would be to say there is something wrong with him. So he says that 99.9% of Muslims reject the Islamists, which is literally impossible because if it were so, the Islamists wouldn’t be wreaking havoc everywhere from Sydney to Sanaa.

Complicating this psychological disturbance on the part of our president is his overweening desire to make a deal with Iran, almost at all costs. Bizarre as it sounds, a deal with Iran would prove to Obama that Islam — at least in its Iranian shiite form — is capable of modernity. To the rest of us, it means they’re capable of nuclear war. (I guess that’s sort of modernity.) In any case, Obama’s greatest lie is designed to include Iran and its leaders in the good 99.9%. I can’t imagine a scarier thought.

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2015. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Addressing the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, President Obama admonished his audience not to get on a “high horse” about Islamic terrorists (of course he did not name them) since atrocities had been committed in the name of many religions or, as he put it more specifically, “Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Well, that doesn’t mean me. As a Jew, I’m exempt from anything done “in the name of Christ.” But frankly I was appalled by what Obama said. Many faiths could be cited, including communism, obviously, also a kind of religion that was responsible for exponentially more deaths — via Stalin’s Gulag, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc. — than all other belief systems combined, although none of them are doing it now. Right now it’s Islamic radicalism that just the other day placed a human being in a cage and burned him alive, an act not, to my knowledge, even performed by Dr. Mengele. And it was done in the name of Allah.

And yet Obama saw fit to lecture his audience on the Crusades and slavery, done “in the name of Christ,” subjects of which his audience was undoubtedly well aware and, needless to say, did not approve in the slightest. Yet still the president felt he had to hector them. Why?

To begin with, we can find some the answer in his criticism of ISIS, which Obama described as ”a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” Note the now unsurprising use of the word “religion,” not “Islam,” or the even more telling “Mohammed,” a warlord who married a little girl and a figure, one can safely say, not very much like Christ. Nevertheless, Obama can blacken Christians and name them in a speech, but not Muslims.

The reason is not complicated. Obama is not a religious person. He rarely appears in church, except for political purposes. He is titularly a Christian, but identifies emotionally, from his youth in Indonesian madrassas and from his ideological predisposition, with Third World Muslims. But now he is confronted with those same Muslims behaving like barbarians across Africa and the Middle East and sometimes into Europe and America.

What would be his reaction to that? Pretty much what it is for most throughout the Islamic world — shame. As many have noted, Islam is a shame culture (the kind of society that will go berserk over cartoons) and, like it or not, our president is part of it culturally. That does not mean he is stoning adulterers or cutting off the hands of thieves or treating women like chattel, but it does mean he is genuinely and quite deeply ashamed of the religion he, in part, came from. He cannot adjust to or accept the calamities it is causing. Unlike the president of Egypt, he cannot name it.

This also explains Obama’s determination to whitewash the behavior of Iran and make a deal with the Islamic Republic that will jeopardize the entire world. It also helps make more clear his ambivalent (at best) relationship to the state of Israel and its leaders.

It grieves me much to write this, because it is a horrible situation. Obama is not a Manchurian candidate and never was. He never had to be. He is just absolutely the wrong human being to be leading the West at this point in history. Heaven help us.